update ladotd policy on pile driving vibration management ... ladotd policy on pile driving... ·...

MINGJIANG TAO, PH.D., P.E.WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

JANUARY, 2011

Update LADOTD Policy on Pile Driving Vibration Management (09-1GT)

Presentation Outline

Research Objectives

Methodology

ResultsThreshold PPV limitsApproach to determine a pre-construction

survey distance & a monitoring distance

Conclusions and Recommendations

Research Incentives

http://www.georisk.se/web/page.aspx?pageid=29013

How large a vibration monitoring area is enough?

Strongly dependent on:

• soil conditions

• dynamic sources

• susceptibility of structures

Research Objectives

Update current LA DOTD policy, and provide implementable recommendations for monitoring and control of ground and structure vibrations

Methodology

Methodology

Literature Review

Questionnaire Survey

Collect data from case history project in Louisiana

Data analysis

Pile driving, wave propagation, & wave attenuation

Scaled-distance concept

Preconstruction survey distance vs. vibration monitoring distance

Pile

Rsurvey

Rmonitoring

structural damage: PPV<0.5 in/s

Rmonitoring=Rsurvey

Determine pre-construction survey distance

Estimate the Monitoring Area Range

1. Upper limit PPV

2. Determine threshold PPV

value

3. SD corresponding to

threshold PPV

Chart PPV vs. SD

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10

PP

V(i

n./

s)

Scaled distance(ft/sqrt(ft-lbs))

Scaled Distance(horizontal, Max Rated Energy)-PPVk=0.93, n=1

0.5

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Determine pre-construction survey distance

Mon

itori

ng D

ista

nce

(ft)

Rated Energy (ft-lbs)

Monitoring Distance vs. Rated Energy

Rated Energy of the Hammer Applied

Vibration Monitoring Distance

Step 44. Vibration monitoring

distance

Step 1: Determine vibration monitoring distance

A statistical approach:• Best-fit line• Confidence level line• Prediction level line

Back-calculation approach (best-fit line)

Determine vibration monitoring distance: Step 1

Confidence level line: 95 % Confidence Interval ─ if you collected ground vibration data many times, 95 times out of 100, the mean of the dataset would be in this range.

Prediction level line: 95 % Prediction Interval means that about 95 % of the time, the next ground vibration measurement you make will be inside this interval.

Step 2: Threshold PPV value

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity That Varies with Frequency

0.1

1

10

1 10 100

PAR

TIC

LE V

ELO

CIT

Y, in

/sec

FREQUENCY, Hz

RI 8507 APPENDIX B. -- ALTERNATE BLASTING LEVEL CRITERIA

0.5 in/s Plaster0.75 in/s DrywallOSM Modificaton

0.03 in

0.008 in

2 in/s

0.5 in/s

0.75 in/s

1. USBM criteria

Current LA DOTD specification

Determining threshold PPV value

2. Germany criteria

Current LA DOTD specification

Determining threshold PPV value

3.The Swedish Standard

Determining threshold PPV value- The Swedish Standard

Residential house: V= 9 x 1.00 x 0.75 x 0.60 = 4.05 mm/s (0.16 in/s) This value is less than 6 mm/s (0.24 in/s) used as a

limit for human response in the German Standard DIN 4150 (1986).

Industrial building: V = 9 x 1.20 x 1.20 x 1.00 = 12.96 mm/s (0.51 in/s) This value is very small for industrial building built

with reinforced concrete, steel, and pile foundations.

Too conservative

Determining threshold PPV value-Russia criterion

4. Russia Limits of Structure Vibration The frequency-independent safe limit of 51 mm/s (2

in/s) can be chosen for the PPV of structural (not ground) vibrations for multi-story residential, commercial and industrial buildings.

There will be practical obstacles for LA DOTD implementing this criterion

Determining threshold PPV value

5.Maximum Peak Particle Velocity Independent of Frequency (by Woods 1996)

Structure and ConditionLimiting Particle Velocity

(in./sec) (mm/sec)Historic and some old

structures 0.5 (12.7)

Residential structures 0.5 (12.7)New residential structures 1.0 (25.4)

Industrial building 2.0 (50.8)Bridges 2.0 (50.8)

Threshold PPV limits for LA DOTD

Structure and ConditionLimiting Particle Velocity

(in./sec) (mm/sec)Historic and some old

structures 0.1 (2.5)

Residential structures 0.5 (12.7)New residential structures 1.0 (25.4)

Industrial building 2.0 (50.8)Bridges 2.0 (50.8)

o Simple and easy to be implemented.o Reasonably conservative: assumed a magnification factor of 4, structural vibration is 2 in./sec.

Threshold PPV limits-Further confirmation with dynamic FEM simulations

Results

Collected Available Data

(a) a list of necessary data and information required for pile-driving vibration risk management

Available Information Huey P. Long Bridge Widening Project

Millerville Road over Honey Cut Bayou

Bayou Plaquemine Bridge Replacement Project

The Rigolets Pass Bridge Project

Project Description √ √ √ √Hammer and Pile Details √ √ √ √Penetration Depth Data √ √Energy transferred to Plies √Vibration Monitoring √Soil Profile √ √ √ √PPV 3 directional Velocity √ √ √

Velocity Vector √ √ √Max PPV √ √ √ √

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10

Peak

Par

ticle

Vel

ocity

(in.

/s)

Scaled Distance (ft/sqrt(ft-lbs))

Millerville Bayou Road Rigolets Bayou Degleises

Causeway Tickfaw Amite HPL

PPV = 0.080(SD)-0.679

R2=0.404

PPV = 0.015(SD)-1.494

Woods & Jedele’s, Soil II

PPV = 0.081(SD)-1.11

Woods & Jedele’s, Soil III

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10

Peak

Par

ticle

Vel

ocity

(in.

/s)

Scaled Distance (ft/sqrt(ft-lbs))

Millerville Bayou Road Rigolets Bayou Degleises

Causeway Tickfaw Amite HPL

PPV = 0.350(SD)-1.0

PPV = 0.080(SD)-0.679

R2=0.404

PPV = 0.211(SD)-1.0

PPV = 0.015(SD)-1.494

Woods & Jedele’s, Soil II

PPV = 0.081(SD)-1.11

Woods & Jedele’s, Soil III

PPV = 0.1(SD)-1.0

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10

Peak

Par

ticle

Vel

ocity

(in.

/s)

Scaled Distance, SD (ft/sqrt(ft-lbs))

Millerville Bayou Road RigoletsBayou Degleises Causeway TickfawAmite HPL

PPV = 0.350(SD)-1.0

PPV = 0.211(SD)-1.0

0.5

0.70.4

Pre-Construction Survey Distance

Determine vibration monitoring range

Step 4 ( , PPV=0.5 in./s, (Hammer energy transfer efficiency=50%)

Hammer ModelRated energy (W) (ft‐lbs)

Monitoring distance (ft)

Monitoring distance (ft)

Monitoring distance (ft)

Bruce SGH‐3013 hydraulic hammer 282,100 158.5 262.9 133

DELMAG D46‐23, Diesel Hammer 105,000 96.7 160.4 81

PILECO, D19‐42, Diesel Hammer 42,480 43.8 72.6 52Boh/Vulcan 08 24,000 50.0 82.9 39Boh/Vulcan 09 27,000 56.0 92.9 41Boh/Vulcan 010 32,500 61.5 102.0 45

Conmaco 300E5,Air Hammer 149,600 46.2 76.7 97I.C.E 42‐S, Single‐Acting Diesel 42,000 49.0 81.3 51I.C.E 60S, Single‐Acting Diesel 60,000 53.8 89.2 61

I.C.E I‐46v2, Single‐Acting Diesel 10,700 115.4 191.4 26

APE Model D30‐4237,824 61.2 101.4 4967,274 73.1 121.2 6574,750 30.9 51.2 68

I.C.E I‐30 Diesel Hammer 35,385 58.0 96.3 4771,700 70.2 116.4 67

99%PL k=0.35; n=-1

FL DOTk=0.21; n=-1

10

100

10,000 100,000

Mon

itori

ng d

ista

nce

(ft)

Rate energy of driving hammer (ft-lbf)

99% Prediction level BackCalculation (k=0.35; n=1)

Fl DOT specification

0.25√W

Use the chosen pile driving hammer to determine Vibration Monitoring Distance (based on 50% energy transfer efficiency of hammer and threshold PPV=0.5 in/s)

0.30√W

0.49√W

Current LA DOTD specification

W (ft‐lbs) D (ft)100,000 79.1100,000 94.4100,000 156.5

200

500

200,000

10

100

1000

10,000 100,000

Mon

itori

ng d

ista

nce

(ft)

Rate energy of driving hammer (ft-lbf)

99% prediction level (k=0.211, n=-1);threshold PPV=0.1 in./s

Use the chosen pile driving hammer to determine Vibration Monitoring Distance (based on 50% energy transfer efficiency of hammer and threshold PPV=0.1 in/s) for special conditions

5001.49√W

Conclusions and Recommendations

Vibration Monitoring Distance for LA DOTD

The current LA DOTD specification is too conservative (500 ft)

Use 200-ft for general conditions

Use 500-ft for special cases (loose sand deposits; historic buildings; etc.)

For a given pile driving project with: Designed pile bearing capacity & chosen driving hammer

o Pre‐construction surveyo Estimated Vibration Monitoring Distance (VMD)

Incorporate site specific conditions:o Distances of surrounding buildings from driven pileso Any historic buildings within EVMRo Any building housing sensitive equipment within VMD

Verify adequacy of actual VMD during driving testing piles

Use verified VMD for driving production piles

Modify VMD and/or driving design if actual VMD is not adequate

Implementation Flow-chart

Engineering Mitigation Measures

Pre-poring prior to pile installation Selecting proper hammers to reduce hammers

energy Using cast-in-place piles or non-displacement piles Drilling shaft foundation instead of driven piles

Conclusions and Recommendations

Threshold PPV limits are determined for LA DOTD.

A procedure to determine Pre-construction survey area & Vibration Monitoring Distance is developed.

An updated specification to managing pile-driving induced risk has been developed.

Questions

Acknowledgements

The project is financially supported by the Louisiana Transportation Research Center and Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA DOTD) (09-1GT).

Gavin Gautreau, Dr. Doc Zhang, Dr. Ching Tsai, and other PRC members

Mo Zhang (WPI graduate student) Mark Svinkin (Vibroconsult)

Dynamic settlement (presence of loose sand) Consolidation settlement (presence of soft clay) Threshold shear strain concept

Determining threshold PPV value

Relative density, Dr(%) Description0‐20 Very loose20‐40 Loose40‐60 Medium60‐80 Dense80‐100 Very dense

NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization

Determining threshold PPV value

0.01% >

Compare γ of loose sand to the γt (0.01%).

Determine if loose sand exists based on CPT or SPT results

Dynamic settlement is not a concerned issue.

No Yes

Determining threshold PPV value

0.01% >The shear wave velocities are in the range of 300-500 ft/s for most sands

The threshold PPV values for preventing dynamic settlement are calculated as a range of 0.36-0.6 in/s

Replaced with PPV =k(SD)(-n)

Determining threshold PPV value